Being a newbie at vp, I've read that the amount needed for an
adequate bankroll is 3-5 times the payoff for a royal. My question
is, if my husband and I both play, can we share that bankroll or do
we each need to have our own?
Question about bankroll
Being a newbie at vp, I've read that the amount needed for an
adequate bankroll is 3-5 times the payoff for a royal. My
question
is, if my husband and I both play, can we share that bankroll or
do
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gms5997" <gngsears@h...> wrote:
we each need to have our own?
*********************************************************************
The short answer is yes, since the machine doesn't know and doesn't
care whether both of you are playing, or whether you are playing a
double session.
In the short term (say, a weekend's play) with both of you playing,
you'll experience bigger swings, by a factor of about 1.4. So that a
weekend's 25c single line full pay deuces wild would need a bankroll
(at a 90% confidence) of 1.4 times $1,200 or about $1,700.
The factor 1.4 is the square root of 2 when truncated to one decimal
place. Standard deviation is a measure of risk, with both of you
playing, you double the variance of the game, and standard deviation
is the square root of variance, hence the factor 1.4.
The above is true as long as your play and your husband's play are
independent of each other (and in your case, they are) so that there
is no need to consider something called covariance.
Covariance becomes a concern when, for example, you both pay
blackjack at the same table; and experienced blackjack playing
couples are known to always play at separate tables as a way to
lower their combined risks.
L. Wluiki
Being a newbie at vp, I've read that the amount needed for an
adequate bankroll is 3-5 times the payoff for a royal. My
question
is, if my husband and I both play, can we share that bankroll or
do
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gms5997" <gngsears@h...> wrote:
we each need to have our own?
********************************************************************
I re-read your question and I am sorry to have answered it too
tersely. The intended answer was "Yes, you and your husband can
share the same bahkroll".
The 90% confidence figures were based on the assumption that you and
your husband each play about 10,000 hands for a combined 20,000
hands. Additionally, approximately Normal Distribution is also
assumed. In practice, short term play can deviate quite a bit from
being Normal (or "Gaussian"), and a slightly lager short term
bankroll is recomended. For further details, please check out Jazbo
Burn's website listed in the "Links" of the vpFREE page.
L. Wluiki
As much as I understand the reasoning behind that advice, I don't
necessarilly agree with it. I think a lot of it depends on your
exact gambling plans, at least to some degree.
What I mean by that is that I'd expect to need more "bankroll" for a
multi-day trip to Vegas than for an overnight @AC. And, similarly, I
anticipate spending more on gambling during an overnight @AC than on
a daytrip there.
My wife & I are at a point where "bankrolling" 3-5X the payoff for a
royal for our gambling trips just isn't practical; we don't have it.
Our typical combined bankroll for a trip to AC(we live in Pa. and
haven't yet made it to Vegas, tho we both definitely want to!) is
rarely over $200. We're ok with that tho; we don't expect it to be
more, nor do we spend more(out of ATMs, casino credit, etc.) if/when
we're there and it runs out before our trip does, so what else
matters?
Again, I understand the reasons why Jean Scott(and others) give this
type of advice(Particularly since "Frugal Gambler" seems to "presume"
a multi-day Vegas trip is what's being discussed/considered). But if
a $100-$150 bankroll was ok when I was playing slots(which it was,
and for several handpays too), why shouldn't it be ok for playing
VP? Especially when a bankroll of ANY size lasts CONSIDERABLY longer
@VP than @Slots!
I sure hope that Mrs. Scott(and the others dispensing similarly wise
advice) don't expect me to stick with playing slots till we're able
to afford an "adequate" bankroll? Particularly since - imo, at
least - the longer I play slots(rather than VP) the LONGER it'll be
before I'm able to bankroll that amount.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gms5997" <gngsears@h...> wrote:
Being a newbie at vp, I've read that the amount needed for an
adequate bankroll is 3-5 times the payoff for a royal.
--- gms5997 wrote:
> Being a newbie at vp, I've read that the amount needed for an
> adequate bankroll is 3-5 times the payoff for a royal.
Jeff replied:
As much as I understand the reasoning behind that advice, I don't
necessarilly agree with it. I think a lot of it depends on your
exact gambling plans, at least to some degree.
Jeff, in reading your post there appears to be some confusion in the
use of the term "bankroll" -- a confusion that's common given the
multi-purpose use the word finds.
In the "gms" post it's a reference to the career-long loss that an
individual is willing to bear in their play before throwing the towel in.
As you're thinking of it, it's the amount that you take with you to
cover potential losses on any given trip.
Both reflect general use of the word "bankroll", although I personally
would prefer that it be restricted to the long-term concept and that
the term "trip stake" be applied in the latter case.
Comments on the "3-5 times" estimate (don't expect "brief", coming
from me):
···
------
It should be stressed that this is a general ballpark range that
applies in a limited number of circumstances.
And it should be understood that the concept of bankroll applies only
to "positive" play. It's used to indicate the loss amount to which a
given play is very likely limited over the course of "long-term" play
in most circumstances. It's expressed in terms of probable
loss-limits, typically with a 1% or 5% probability that career play
won't exceed the stated bankroll amount. It differs with each game
and cashback/cash bonus assumption.
Any play that is near-breakeven, or at an expected loss (say 9/6 JB
with .25% cb), bears a substantial risk of very large losses over the
medium-term and there's a near certainty of such losses over the
"long-term" considered under the bankroll concept -- many millions of
hands, which all but the most avid players aren't likely to see. For
this reason, there is no expected loss-limit defined for negative
play; in the case of a negative play the long-term loss limit is
considered to be limitless.
Don't be misguided into thinking that just because such lengthy is
part of the bankroll concept that it doesn't apply to more modest
play. In the majority of cases where a loss in excess of the stated
bankroll amount is incurred it will happen early on in play -- when
the positive advantage of that play hasn't built up much of a cushion
against potential losses.
In any case, don't fool yourself into thinking that you're properly
bankrolled if the bankroll requirement of a play represents a loss
that you're willing to bear over an extended period of time. Large
cumulative losses when they occur (typically in the form of a royal
drought combined with subpar play results on other hands) will likely
be hit at a fast and furious pace.
And to drive the stake in a bit further, it's a bit foolhardy to take
comfort in your bankroll if you're measuring against a "5% risk of
ruin" bankroll requirement. The failure rate there is 1 in 20 and
invites an Eastwood-ian "Are you feeling lucky?" crack.
------
The "3-5 times" estimate is generally applicable to plays with a
moderate risk at most and with an overall player advantage of at least
0.5% - 1%. Examples might be FP Deuces w/ .25% cb or 10/7 Double
Bonus w/ .4% cb/bonuses.
More volatile plays such as DDB or DD/LD are likely to have
considerably greater bankroll requirements, even when played with
cashback/cash bonus opportunities that provide the player a sizable
advantage.
------
Finally, bankroll limits are simply loss limit estimates within a
given probability restriction. On any play there's no guarantee that
losses won't run far in excess of that, just as there's always the
possibility that negative play will produce profits beyond the
player's dreams.
How's that for a little gloom and doom on a Tuesday morning? 
- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
> --- gms5997 wrote:
> > Being a newbie at vp, I've read that the amount needed for an
> > adequate bankroll is 3-5 times the payoff for a royal.Jeff replied:
> As much as I understand the reasoning behind that advice, I don't
> necessarilly agree with it. I think a lot of it depends on your
> exact gambling plans, at least to some degree.Jeff, in reading your post there appears to be some confusion in the
use of the term "bankroll" -- a confusion that's common given the
multi-purpose use the word finds.In the "gms" post it's a reference to the career-long loss that an
individual is willing to bear in their play before throwing the
towel in.As you're thinking of it, it's the amount that you take with you to
cover potential losses on any given trip.Both reflect general use of the word "bankroll", although I
personally would prefer that it be restricted to the long-term
concept and that the term "trip stake" be applied in the latter
case.
Oh, ok. I was "interpreting" gms's use of the term to mean
your "latter" definition; the amount one takes with them to gamble
with on a particular casino trip(whether that be a day trip, an
overnight, a week's vacation, etc.); what one "starts out with" on a
particular trip(and/or session). Much the same as I "interpret" Jean
Scott's use of the term in her "Frugal Gambler" book.
When Jean "recommends(she'd probably put it stronger)" that one have
a "bankroll" of at least $3,000 before beginning to play VP "for real
(in an actual casino, as opposed to on WinPoker, etc.)", I interpret
that as meaning the minimum amount(that one is willing to play with
and/or lose; the minimum amount one has "earmarked for gambling
ONLY") that one should start out their gaming trip(and/or session)
with. Am I correct about her use/definition of this term here?
I interpreted gms's use of the "bankroll" term this way as well. I'm
still not sure it was meant in the "other" way, but I suppose it was,
or at least could have been.
Here's the bankroll entry in the vpFREE FAQ:
http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/FAQ.htm#50
<a href="http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/FAQ.htm#50">
http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/FAQ.htm#50</a>
···
On 2 Dec 2003 at 15:44, Jeff wrote:
When Jean "recommends(she'd probably put it stronger)" that one have a
"bankroll" of at least $3,000 before beginning to play VP "for real (in
an actual casino, as opposed to on WinPoker, etc.)", I interpret that as
meaning the minimum amount(that one is willing to play with and/or lose;
the minimum amount one has "earmarked for gambling ONLY") that one
should start out their gaming trip(and/or session) with. Am I correct
about her use/definition of this term here?
Excellent post, Harry. I like your idea of distinguishing 'trip stake' from long-term 'bankroll'. It makes a lot of sense, and could be a handy distinction to help avoid confusion during discussions. I nominate it for inclusion in the VPFree Glossary.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
Harry Porter wrote:
> --- gms5997 wrote:
> > Being a newbie at vp, I've read that the amount needed for an
> > adequate bankroll is 3-5 times the payoff for a royal.Jeff replied:
> As much as I understand the reasoning behind that advice, I don't
> necessarilly agree with it. I think a lot of it depends on your
> exact gambling plans, at least to some degree.Jeff, in reading your post there appears to be some confusion in the
use of the term "bankroll" -- a confusion that's common given the
multi-purpose use the word finds.In the "gms" post it's a reference to the career-long loss that an
individual is willing to bear in their play before throwing the towel in.As you're thinking of it, it's the amount that you take with you to
cover potential losses on any given trip.Both reflect general use of the word "bankroll", although I personally
would prefer that it be restricted to the long-term concept and that
the term "trip stake" be applied in the latter case.
snipped excellent info, but not relevant to this reply.
Guess I should have checked the glossary before I replied to Harry. Sorry 'bout that.
Bill Velek
vp_FREE wrote:
···
Here's the bankroll entry in the vpFREE FAQ:
http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/FAQ.htm#50
I talk about bankroll in Frugal 1, beginning on page 74. I am referring mostly to long-term bankroll, not session bankroll.
In Frugal 2, at the bottom of page 142, I talk about what you should do if you don't have that big of a bankroll. But again I mostly talk about long-term bankroll - probably too much emphasis there - but I consider VP ONE long lifetime VP session. I probably need to address short-term trip stakes in more detail in Frugal 3 - the problem is there ain't going to be a Frugal 3!!!!
···
____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
MORE FRUGAL GAMBLING can now
be ordered, autographed, at
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I probably need to address short-term trip stakes in more detail in Frugal 3 - the problem is there ain't going to be a Frugal 3!!!!
HA !!
Of course there is going to be a Frugal 3
Jean Scott wrote:
snip
... I probably need to address short-term trip stakes in more detail in Frugal 3 - the problem is there ain't going to be a Frugal 3!!!!
Sure there is. I'm in the process of writing it right now. "Frugal Gambler 3", by Bill Velek. Just kidding. 
Bill
I don't know if Jean should do a Frugal 3 or not, but this is an
important issue.
I enjoy this Yahoo group, and I expect discussions to usually focus
on gamblers who play a lot more than I do. But there is the mid-
range VP gambler, someone who can read pay-tables but doesn't play
very much. I want to play intelligently, but it's difficult to
advise me, the mid-range player, because I don't play enough to
approach theoretical probabilities.
I have my personal theories, and they tend to be conservative. My
theories work for me, they get me out alive after a little FITR!
Gary
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:
I probably need to address short-term trip stakes in
more detail in Frugal 3
The 90% confidence figures were based on the assumption that you
and
your husband each play about 10,000 hands for a combined 20,000
hands. Additionally, approximately Normal Distribution is also
assumed. In practice, short term play can deviate quite a bit from
being Normal (or "Gaussian"), and a slightly lager short term
bankroll is recomended. For further details, please check out Jazbo
Burn's website listed in the "Links" of the vpFREE page.L. Wluiki
I checked out the Jazbo site you mentioned, looking for a discussion
of the Normal Distribution as it relates to VP, but couldn't find
anything. Do you know of any site/book/etc that specifically
discusses this? Last year I brought this up on the WinPoker site, and
most of the people who commented seemed to doubt it had anything to
do with VP. Since I'm a newbie, this topic may have already been
hashed over on this site.
brumar_lv wrote:
I checked out the Jazbo site you mentioned, looking for a discussion
of the Normal Distribution as it relates to VP, but couldn't find
anything.
At Jazbo.com, check out the "VP Probabilities" discussion under the VP
section.
- H.
At Jazbo.com, check out the "VP Probabilities" discussion under the
VP
section.
- H.
Thanks for pointing this out ... I missed it. It's evident the
Normal Distribution analogy doesn't work well for VP if the session
size is 10,000 or less (the basis of his analysis). One comment he
made:
"Quite often, people use the well-known normal distribution to
estimate the kind of results that you should expect when playing
video poker. But, this estimate is off by quite a bit unless you are
talking about a very large number of hands (around 4,000,000 should
do)."
That number (4,000,000) is so much larger than he used in his
investigation! Why is the huge jump to 4,000,000 necessary? His
curves at 10,000 games aren't Normal, but they ARE beginning to
resemble Normal. Too bad he didn't do a plot of 50,000 games, or
100,000 games, to see what they look like.
Please refer to Harry Porter's post (message#23475). Also of interest
(at the same website) is the page on _Volatility_ where Jazbo Burns
discussed the ideas of "Survivability" and "Half Life".
On the page _An Analysis of N-Play Video Poker_ there is a
discussion of covariance as well as a caution about the use of
Normal Distribution in forecasting short term play, and the relevant
point which I tried to make earlier is (quoting from that page):
"By the way, I see many people using the normal distribution as a
yard stick to make statements about expected results relating to
standard deviation. Remember that for the number of hands you have
in a session, the distribution of results is decidedly non-normal.
Instead of estimating the result as 95% confidence of being plus or
minus two standard deviations (which would be true for a normal
distribution), an estimate of being within (1- 1/(# std deviation)
^2) is more appropriate. This says you should expect to be within +-
two standard deviations 75% of the time, and within +- 3 standard
deviations 88.9% (not 99.7%). Also remember that the estimate is for
ending bankroll. The estimate assumes you will keep playing through
any losing streak, perhaps springing back to get inside the
estimated region."
By the way, there is a simple and yet powerful relationship between
bankroll and risk of ruin (RoR), and you can use this relationship
to extend the Cindy Liu and Lotspiech calculators listed at the
vpFREE links:
"Increasing bankroll by a multiplicative (*) factor of n will result
in reducing RoR by an exponential (^) factor of n."
For example, if a bankroll of $1,200 has a RoR of 10% (i.e. 1 in
10), then doubling the bankroll to $2,400 will reduce the RoR to 10%
^2 = 10%*10% = 1% = 1 in 100, and tripling the bankroll to $3,600
will reduce the RoR to 10%^3 = 10%*10%*10% = 0.1% = 1 in 1,000; and
so on.
Because of this, it's not unrealistic to have a RoR of 1 in a
million (I think most of us can live with that)---all you need is a
six fold increase in your 10% bankroll ($7,200 in the example above).
Jazbo's website hasn't changed in a couple of years, does anyone
know how he's doing lately?
L. Wluiki
> The 90% confidence figures were based on the assumption that you
and
> your husband each play about 10,000 hands for a combined 20,000
> hands. Additionally, approximately Normal Distribution is also
> assumed. In practice, short term play can deviate quite a bit
from
> being Normal (or "Gaussian"), and a slightly larger short term
> bankroll is recommended. For further details, please check out
Jazbo
> Burn's website listed in the "Links" of the vpFREE page.
>
> L. WluikiI checked out the Jazbo site you mentioned, looking for a
discussion
of the Normal Distribution as it relates to VP, but couldn't find
anything. Do you know of any site/book/etc that specifically
discusses this? Last year I brought this up on the WinPoker site,
and
most of the people who commented seemed to doubt it had anything
to
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@y...> wrote:
do with VP. Since I'm a newbie, this topic may have already been
hashed over on this site.
I saw Jazbo at BARGE in August. He is doing fine, and seemed well
and very happy.
···
On Monday 08 December 2003 01:32 am, lwluiki wrote:
Jazbo's website hasn't changed in a couple of years, does anyone
know how he's doing lately?
"brumar_lv":
It's evident the Normal Distribution analogy doesn't
work well for VP if the session size is 10,000 or less
"lwluiki":
Because of this, it's not unrealistic to have a RoR of 1 in a
million (I think most of us can live with that)---all you need is a
six fold increase in your 10% bankroll ($7,200 in the example
above).
A person who is concerned about playing a small number of hands should
do the quick math and note that a $7200 bankroll, and we're probably
talking quarters here, represents 1440 losing hands in a row. Since
FPJoB gives a winning hand over 40% of the time, that $7200 really
represents a lot more than 1440 hands, any many hours of play. If I'm
a FITR kind of guy (rather than a serious advantage player) and if I'm
down $7000 playing quarter VP, and if I need multiple RFs just to
break even, I'm probably gonna quit playing VP, unless I'm earning a
Strip-load of comps.
My point is that this is a theoretical discussion and probably doesn't
help a short-term player calculate a session bankroll. I don't have a
good solution, I just pray that when I play the short term volatility
goes in the right direction!
Gary
My point is that this is a theoretical discussion and probably
doesn't
help a short-term player calculate a session bankroll. I don't
have a
good solution, I just pray that when I play the short term
volatility
goes in the right direction!
just subtract out the return of quads or better:
9/6job (99.54-1.98-.55-5.91=91.1%) (-9%)
10/7db (100.17-1.67-.57-3.18-4.19-8.04=82.5%) (-17.5%)
9/6ddb (98.98-1.96-.55-2.46-2.29-2.78-3.08-8.15=77.71%) (-22.3%)
500 hands of $1.25 9/6job could cost you:
500x1.25x9%=$56.25
500 hands of $1.25 9/6ddb could cost you:
500x1.25x22.3%=$139.38
for other games, subtract out hands that have cycles more than
100.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Gary" <gary@g...> wrote: